Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 6^th December 2017.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 6^th December, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no apologies of absence received.

In accordance with the Council’s current Code of Conduct (as amended 26 February 2015), which includes all the provisions relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI), personal and prejudicial interests, Members are asked to declare any DPI and also any personal interests (and whether or not such personal interests are also “prejudicial”) in relation to any matter on the Agenda for this meeting. 

Members are reminded that they need to declare the fact that they are also a member of a County, Town or Parish Council as a Personal Interest.  Where you are also a member of Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council within South Somerset you must declare a prejudicial interest in any business on the agenda where there is a financial benefit or gain or advantage to Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage of South Somerset District Council. 

Planning Applications Referred to the Regulation Committee

The following members of this Committee are also members of the Council’s Regulation Committee:

Councillors Sarah Dyke, Tony Capozzoli, Nick Weeks and Colin Winder.

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, Members of the Regulation Committee can participate and vote on these items at the Area Committee and at Regulation Committee.  In these cases the Council’s decision-making process is not complete until the application is determined by the Regulation Committee.  Members of the Regulation Committee retain an open mind and will not finalise their position until the Regulation Committee.  They will also consider the matter at Regulation Committee as Members of that Committee and not as representatives of the Area Committee.

Councillors William Wallace, Anna Groskop and Mike Lewis, members of SCC (Somerset County Council), would only declare an interest in any business on the agenda where there was a financial benefit or gain or advantage to SCC which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage to SSDC.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 14^th February at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Area East Committee would be held at the Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton on Wednesday 14^th February at 9am.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman made no announcements.

Councillor Capozzoli advised members that Mudford Parish Council were looking at ways to solve problems with local residents using the Village Hall car park. He advised that people were parking in car park overnight and that the PC were considering additional signage and that enforcement action had led to fines being issued.

The Area Development Lead confirmed that the car park had a time restriction of 12 hours, however the sign did not clearly specify no overnight parking. He agreed to contact the car park team to look at the issues around the use of the car park.

Councillor Groskop advised members that Redlynch Park in Bruton had been classified as being ‘at risk’ by English Heritage. She further advised that the Chief Executive Officer of SSDC had been made aware and would like to know the reasons why the area had been classified at this level. The Communities Lead agreed to follow this up with the Conservation Team.

Councillor Winder pointed out that planning application 17/02712/FUL had still not returned to Area East Committee for determination, following the resolution at the October meeting to defer the application to the November meeting of the Committee. However, he noted that the application was deferred to gather additional information and that this takes time which was likely to be the reason for the delay.

He also raised concern over possible contamination of land at Mudford and pointed out had not received a response after raising this concern at the November meeting. The Communities Lead advised that the Planning Team had been investigating this as part of the planning application and that she would ask the Planning Lead Specialist to contact him to advise him of the situation.

The Assistant Highways Service Manager sent his apologies as he was unable to attend the meeting. Members had a brief discussion in his absence.

One member raised concern that the speed indicator devices across the district were being removed and wondered whether communities could purchase these.

He also raised concern that there was still resistance from Somerset County Council to enforce a lower speed limit on the road outside The Park School at Chilton Cantelo. The B3151 at Yeovilton was also raised as a concern.

RESOLVED:  that members deferred the report to the February meeting of the Committee to allow a representative from Somerset County Council to attend.

The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager presented his report to members. He explained that this was an annual update report and that the affordable housing development programme had been reasonably healthy across the district.

He drew members’ attention to the graph within the report which detailed the number of new homes delivered in Area East. He explained that 12 new affordable properties were built last year, however only 6 were built this year.

He advised members that the Strongvox development had been particularly successful and that bespoke property had been developed within the development.   

He advised members that there had been a number of property disposals made by Yarlington Homes and that the amount in Area East was disproportionately higher when compared to the rest of the district. 5 of the 8 disposals across the district were in Area East.

He explained that there were now further grants available for Community Led Housing developments, through a bidding process to the Homes and Communities Agency.

He advised members that there was an affordable housing event currently being arranged.

He highlighted the figures detailed in the appendix to his report. He explained that planning permission had been granted for up to 174 affordable dwellings. One of these developments included within the table, was a development at Vedelers Hay in Wincanton. This was a ‘Rent to Buy’ scheme which was being developed by Stonewater.

He introduced Sue Berry and Charlotte Brace from Stonewater. They provided members with a short introduction to explain the background of Stonewater and provided information on the ‘Rent to Buy’ scheme. They explained that this was a new scheme which provided tenants affordable rent and financial support to enable and to encourage them to save money towards purchasing the home, either in full or as shared ownership.

They responded to questions from members.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report.

Members noted the Area East Forward Plan. It was agreed that the Countryside Service Update Report would be moved the March agenda and that the Highways Update Report would be rescheduled to the next meeting of the Committee in February.

One member suggested that the wording of the Wincanton Community Hospital report should be amended to read ‘future of the Wincanton Community Hospital’, rather than ‘closure of Wincanton Community Hospital’.

RESOLVED: that members noted the Area East Forward Plan.

Members noted the Action List from the Previous Meeting.

RESOLVED: that members noted the report.

Councillor Pallister, Leader of the Council, addressed members. He explained to members that there had been some confusion in the way appeals are measured by SSDC and DCLG. He advised that the appeals approved by The Planning Inspectorate were slightly over the target threshold, and as a result the government could now intervene with the determination of planning applications.

He further advised that although the New Homes Bonus was at risk of being lost, it had now been secured. He explained that the appeals data would be examined and warned each refusal and subsequent appeal would be looked at.

One member advised that they had found that some of the decisions made by PINS had been inconsistent.

RESOLVED: Members noted the appeals which had been allowed or dismissed. 

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications to be determined by Committee.

Application Proposal: Outline planning application for up to 130 dwellings with public open space, landscaping, suitable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access point from Woodhayes Way.

The Area Lead Planner (East) presented his report to members. He explained that the application was an outline application and that all matters except access would be reserved for the reserved matters application.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation he provided images of the site which also showed the adjoining access and proposed access point along the A357. Plans which identified the site location and indicative layout were also shown.

He advised that there had been no objections from the Highways Team, the Lead Local Flood Agency, the SSDC Ecologist or the SSDC Landscape Officer. He did however advise that there had been significant concerns from neighbours. He acknowledged that the application was for more dwellings than the Local Plan requirement for rural settlements.

He advised that the applicant had agreed to the contributions which had been requested and that the application would be CIL liable. He informed members that the site was close to employment opportunities and in the absence of a five year housing land supply; he recommended that the application be approved. 

Mr M Player, representing the Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. He advised that the applicant carried out a public consultation event at the village hall and that large numbers of the members of public that attended were in objection to the application. He disagreed that the application would provide any benefits to the village and felt that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. He pointed out that North Dorset D.C had objected to the application and raised concern over the access and the highway and pointed out that there were areas along this busy road which did not have pavements.

Ms Z Godden, also representing the Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. She pointed out that weight should be given to the Henstridge Design Plan Statement and Parish Plan and that the plan should not be disregarded. She advised that the application does not provide any community services or employment and that the majority of the residents are not in favour of the application.

Mr H Bentley-Marchant, also representing the Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. He was disappointed that the PC had been asked to consider this application. He felt that a large number of the local residents disagreed that the application would provide significant benefits. He suggested that the settlement hierarchy should be considered and that this was overdevelopment for Henstridge as housing targets had already been exceeded. 

Liz Payne, representing the CPRE, spoke in objection to the application. She drew members’ attention to the comments made by the Planning Policy Planner which were detailed in the report. She highlighted that the amount of houses was not commensurate with the rural settlement tier as detailed in the Local Plan. She felt that this application under minded the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Application Proposal: Outline application for up to 23 dwellings with approval for means of access sought and all other matters reserved for future consideration.

The Area Lead Planner (East) presented his report to members and explained that the application had been deferred from the previous month’s meeting. He explained that the application remained identical, however there had been an amendment to the contributions being sought and that the 100k contribution would no longer form part of the application. He recommended that the planning application be approved subject to a section 106 to include an overage clause to allow some money to be claimed should the application be more profitable than currently expected.

The Legal Services Manager advised members that the profitability of the scheme and any possible contributions could be considered and negotiated at a later date when it was known whether there are any funds available from the developer. She also suggested that this could be decided in conjunction with the Wincanton Ward Members. She felt that by applying this review mechanism, the application could be determined in a consistent and fair way and it would be clear what scale of contribution was appropriate.

Mr R Pratt spoke in objection to the application. He explained that the original application was for bungalows and hoped that the homes could still be bungalows. He also hoped that weight could be given to policy and that the application would be refused. He suggested that the traffic assessment does not include the Verrington Hospital site.

Mr Andrew Fleming, the agent, addressed the Committee. He explained that the site has permission for more homes and that the number of dwellings had been reduced to 23. He also pointed out that there was no requirement for affordable homes on the site.

Councillor Nick Colbert, Ward Member, explained that he regretted that this application had been deferred. He advised that he had objected strongly to the original application and felt that it was positive that the number of homes had been reduced to help retain the character of the area. He also felt that it was positive that the affordable homes aspect of the application had been removed.

Councillor Colin Winder, also Ward Member, agreed that the negotiations over the possible funds available in respect of the overage clause should involve the Wincanton Ward Members.

In response to a member’s question, the Area Lead Planner (East) clarified that the application was an outline application and that all other matters, with the exception of access, would be considered at a later stage when a reserved matters application had been submitted. He also confirmed that no contributions towards education were being sought.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, as per the officer report subject to additional wording to ensure that any negotiations over possible contributions following a review would involve agreement with Wincanton Ward Members.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 10 voted in support, with 1 against.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Application Proposal: Erection of single storey extension to east elevation of the dwelling.

The Area Lead Planner (East) presented the report to members. He explained that there had been some further information received from the applicant which confirmed that 2 of the 4 existing bedrooms were used for occasional bed and breakfast accommodation.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, members were shown plans to show the location of the dwelling as well as photos and plans to show existing and proposed elevations.

The Area Lead Planner (East) read out an extract from supplementary guidance titled ‘SSDC Conversion of Barns and Other Historic Buildings 1991’, to highlight the requirement to preserve the specific characteristics of the barn by avoiding additional extensions. He explained that the officer was recommending that the application be refused. 

Mrs J Cox, the applicant and owner, addressed members. She explained that the application would enable her to offer self-catering accommodation as well as bed and breakfast accommodation, which she felt would encourage visitors to stay in the area for longer and increase tourism. She also explained that the extension was not on the front of the property, nor was the property listed or had any historic significance. She also pointed out that the Parish Council had supported the application and that no neighbours had objected. She also highlighted that an extension to the rear of the building had previously been approved. 

Councillor Nick Weeks, Ward Member, felt that small businesses should be encouraged and further stated that the site was in a good location and was not overlooked.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, also Ward Member, agreed that the site was hard to find and could not overlook any other properties. He commented that he could see no reason why this application should be refused.

During the discussion, the Area Lead Officer (East) confirmed that the site was not in a conservation area. Members also noted that the barn had previously been extended and felt that tourism should be encouraged.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, contrary to the officer report as members

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/03899/FUL be approved contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason;

1.            The proposal, on an already extended barn, will have no substantial adverse impact on visual or residential amenity in accordance with policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the relevant sections of the NPPF.

Subject to the following conditions;

1.            The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.            The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans date stamped as received 27.09.17 and reference:

a)         Site Location Plan (scale 1:100)

b)         Drawing No. 03 – Floor Plan as Proposed

c)         Drawing No. 04 – Elevations Proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Application Proposal: Extension to provide a bedroom, en-suite bathroom, glazed sitting room, garage and glazed link building. Raising paths and patios to create level access.

The Planning Officer presented his report to members and using a PowerPoint presentation he displayed images and plans to show the dwelling and the proposed and existing elevations. He pointed out that the proposed extension would have a flat roof and advised that the Parish Council were objecting to the application because of this flat roof. In response to this comment, the Area Lead Officer (East) advised members that the planning application only needed planning approval because of a glazed link roof to the existing dwelling, and that the flat roof extension would not require permission should the glazing element be removed from the application.

Mr J Collins, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He advised that in 2012, planning approval was obtained for a roof terrace which the Parish Council offered their support to. He felt that a pitched roof would not be in-keeping with the area and would obscure the view from the existing balcony. He also pointed out the extension would provide health benefits to the applicant.

Councillor Nick Weeks, Ward Member advised that he regretted bringing the application to the committee for determination and offered his support to the application.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, also Ward Member, also offered his support. However, he explained that he did not realise that the dwelling had an existing balcony which explained the need for a flat roof.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as per the officer report and subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/03781/FUL be approved, as per the officer report as detailed in the agenda for the following reason;

01.       The proposal by reason of its nature, location, size, design, and materials will have no substantial adverse impact on visual or residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with the aims and objectives of policies EQ2, TA5, TA6 and SD1 of the South Somerset Local and the relevant sections of the National Policy Planning Framework 2012.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       The works hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the application and plans numbered D&PM3094/01a, D&PM3094/02, D&PM3094/03, D&PM3094/04, D&PM3094/05a, D&PM3094/06, D&PM3094/07, D&PM3094/08, D&PM3094/09.

            Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

(Voting: unanimous)